Texas woman with ectopic pregnancy denied abortion

[NxNW]

I'm sure that's the case where the doctors are concerned. But the situation is also being exploited by those who want wholesale abortions to proceed unimpeded.

Well, wholesale is cheaper than full retail price, after all. [sarcasm]

 

[NxNW]

A child that is the consequences of your own poor decision making is not an intruder.

Calling it a child does not make it a child.

the person going into your home is a stranger, you do not know their motivations or if they are a threat to you or your family, so you're acting in self defense.

The woman does not know the motivations of the unborn, either. But if you're claiming the unborn is a full-fledged human being, then it has the same responsibilities as everyone else, right? It could be argued that those responsibilities would include not being an unwanted intruder.

First off, the woman should be aware that if she has sex, a pregnancy is a possible consequence, so, she should make decisions wisely with that in mind. Contraceptives may lower the chance, but not eliminate it completely. So if a woman is going to have sex, she has to be willing to accept that this may make her a mother.

I've already refuted this illogical claim. When having sex, a woman cannot be giving permission to the unborn, because the unborn does not yet exist.

For an actual married family, okay, prepare to expand your family then, it happens. It happened to my sister, her IUD failed...

Your anecdote is not relevant.

For unwed? You know, maybe consider not fornicating or committing adultery?

Not everyone believes marriage is necessary or appropriate.

I see no reason for abortions to be legal on the premise of enabling fornication/adultery, "hookup culture" if you will. If driving abortions out of easy accessibility reduces hook up culture? God be praised.

You already know that making abortions less accessible has no such effect.

as far as "my body my choice"? Well, I used to drink that kool aid, until they started pushing for vaccine mandates. Suddenly it's not my body my choice anymore is it?

When one starts endangering others, it might be an indicator that one is not truly concerned with preserving life.

Not to mention, in a pregnancy, there are 2 bodies involved.
and one of them is not the woman's.

There are two bodies involved in the winter intruder example, but you seem be be unconcerned about both bodies in that case.

 

[NxNW]

obviously men shouldn't be fornicating and committing adultery in the first place.

One wonders why the Christian right supported Donald Trump, then. Trump's then-lawyer, Michael Cohen, helped cover up Jerry Falwell Jr.'s adultery scandal and in turn extracted Falwell's endorsement of Trump. You've got adulterers endorsing adulterers, and the Christian right voted for Trump. Even after Trump's bribe to Stormy Daniels came to light, including the actual check he wrote, the Christian right still largely supports Trump.

Hook up culture needs to go entirely.
I've heard plenty of complaints about how society has a double standard on sexual purity where women are expected to be pure while men are encouraged to go and "sow their wild oats".
Well, that needs to go.
Women shouldn't be fornicating, and neither should men.

And yet the Christian right keeps supporting Donald Trump.

 

[loveofourlord]

If the plaintiff loses the state pays his legal fees. If the plaintiff wins the defendant pays them.

well depends, more places need antislaap laws. where is frivolous the plaintiff pays, to get around revenge, or just trying to sue someone you don't like lawsuits and such.

 

[FireDragon76]

Seems the agenda is to take an exceptional case and present it as the rule for why wholesale abortions should be legal.

Ectopic pregnancies aren't exceptional. They are uncommon, but they happen often enough that laws that don't make provisions for them are grossly immoral.

 

[ottawak]

Seems the agenda is to take an exceptional case and present it as the rule for why wholesale abortions should be legal.

Not the agenda of anyone here. We just don't want abortion laws to enable gratuitous cruelty--like not caring if women die as long as they don't have an abortion.

 

[Pommer]

The men aren't the ones aborting, it's not their body, so not their choice, remember? A father actually has no decision making power legally in the case of abortion. If a man gets a woman pregnant, and she wants to abort? She can currently murder the child no matter what the man says even if he wants to keep the baby.

This seems to say that if men are deprived of any post-conception choices, then (equal rights and all), women are also legally without any options and must carry the fetus to term.

 

[Pommer]

The men aren't the ones aborting, it's not their body, so not their choice, remember? A father actually has no decision making power legally in the case of abortion. If a man gets a woman pregnant, and she wants to abort? She can currently murder the child no matter what the man says even if he wants to keep the baby.
The only impact he can have after the pregnancy starts is trying to influence her decision, and to that effect there are many irresponsible men who urge a girlfriend get an abortion even if she would like to have the baby, but he pressures her. So just think, if abortion's not allowed electively anymore, those evil men won't be pressuring their girlfriends into getting abortions against their will now will they?
though, obviously men shouldn't be fornicating and committing adultery in the first place.

Hook up culture needs to go entirely.
I've heard plenty of complaints about how society has a double standard on sexual purity where women are expected to be pure while men are encouraged to go and "sow their wild oats".
Well, that needs to go.
Women shouldn't be fornicating, and neither should men.

It's sin and we need to stop glorifying it.

What about the 14% of abortions that stem from women who are married?

 

[Jamdoc]

Calling it a child does not make it a child.

Dehumanizing a child is disgusting.

The woman does not know the motivations of the unborn, either. But if you're claiming the unborn is a full-fledged human being, then it has the same responsibilities as everyone else, right? It could be argued that those responsibilities would include not being an unwanted intruder.

This is the same logic used for genocide. Dehumanize the target so that killing them doesn't seem immoral.
Absolutely horrid.
Your opinion is vile.

I've already refuted this illogical claim. When having sex, a woman cannot be giving permission to the unborn, because the unborn does not yet exist.

If you drink and drive you're responsible for the accident that you may cause that may kill someone, because you made the choice to do that, even though you did not intend to kill someone, it doesn't make you not responsible.

Not everyone believes marriage is necessary or appropriate.

That doesn't matter, there's an objective morality at work here. Your agreeing with the source of that objective morality is not required. You will be held accountable to that objective morality. Your belief is not required to condemn you, you're already condemned as it is. Your belief is required to spare you.
It always, always comes down to atheists wanting to deny judgement over their actions.

You already know that making abortions less accessible has no such effect.

It will, when it's underground, more women will opt to not take the risk, and if women decide to go to term and just pursue child support? It might also affect men's decisions for the better too.
Within the first day after it was leaked Roe v Wade might be overturned? People took to twitter.
What were their warnings?
That this would be the end of one night stands and hookup culture.
Good.

When one starts endangering others, it might be an indicator that one is not truly concerned with preserving life.

Abortion goes beyond endangering someone else
it deliberately kills them.

There are two bodies involved in the winter intruder example, but you seem be be unconcerned about both bodies in that case.

One broke a law and is possibly dangerous to the homeowner, they don't have time to play 20 questions, they just act to defend their own life.
An honest human being looking for help doesn't just barge into someone else's house, they knock on the door and ask for help.
a pregnancy is not at all the same, because you invited that baby in with your choices.

again, rape or incest? Morning after pill, offer it during post rape examinations. That wasn't their choice and blocking implantation isn't aborting, it's preventing conception.
and obviously if the fetus is actually a threat to the mother's life, like ectopic pregnancy, well then it's an act of self defense.

But elective abortion, a murder with malice, just because people were sinning and don't want consequence?
Unacceptable.

It'd be more convenient for someone to murder someone and take their money wouldn't it? Just like it'd be more convenient for the single woman who hooked up in a one night stand with the guy she met at a bar to abort....
doesn't make it right.

 

[Jamdoc]

What about the 14% of abortions that stem from women who are married?

They can grow their family, or put up for adoption.
if they're married and don't want to have more children or any children, there are options available aside from murder.
Vasectomy is a perfectly valid option.
there you go, something for men's responsibility just like you asked.
Easy operation, doesn't even require a surgical suite and is often done in office.

That's what I'd advise any married man who's decided with their wife that they don't want any children or more children, snip snip.

 

[Pommer]

They can grow their family, or put up for adoption.
if they're married and don't want to have more children or any children, there are options available aside from murder.
Vasectomy is a perfectly valid option.
there you go, something for men's responsibility just like you asked.
Easy operation, doesn't even require a surgical suite and is often done in office.

That's what I'd advise any married man who's decided with their wife that they don't want any children or more children, snip snip.

That’s rather “all or nothing” no?
Maybe the couple just doesn’t want another child yet? but will in a few years?

There’s a reason that I try not to post in abortion threads, I wish I stuck to that more often.
Have a great night deciding things for other people!

 

[Jamdoc]

That’s rather “all or nothing” no?
Maybe the couple just doesn’t want another child yet? but will in a few years?

There’s a reason that I try not to post in abortion threads, I wish I stuck to that more often.
Have a great night deciding things for other people!

That's literally what an abortion is though, a woman deciding that another person doesn't get to live.

 

[Pommer]

That's literally what an abortion is though, a woman deciding that another person doesn't get to live.

…in her body. Yes. (Also fetus≠”person”)

 

[NxNW]

Dehumanizing a child is disgusting.

It's a good thing I have not done so.

This is the same logic used for genocide. Dehumanize the target so that killing them doesn't seem immoral.
Absolutely horrid.
Your opinion is vile.

Do you have an argument with evidence to support it?

That doesn't matter, there's an objective morality at work here.

You keep making claims without supporting them.

Your agreeing with the source of that objective morality is not required. You will be held accountable to that objective morality. Your belief is not required to condemn you, you're already condemned as it is. Your belief is required to spare you.

More unsupported claims.

It always, always comes down to atheists wanting to deny judgement over their actions.

And now, false accusations.

One broke a law and is possibly dangerous to the homeowner, they don't have time to play 20 questions, they just act to defend their own life.
An honest human being looking for help doesn't just barge into someone else's house, they knock on the door and ask for help.

You seem to be implying that the unborn is dishonest.

a pregnancy is not at all the same, because you invited that baby in with your choices.

Impossible, because you can't invite somebody who doesn't exist.

 

[Jamdoc]

…in her body. Yes. (Also fetus≠”person”)

Fetuses move, dream, react to stimuli, have preferences
yup that's a person.
we don't know the exact timing of when a fetus attains a human consciousness or soul.
but erring on the side of caution is good when it's a human's life in question.
The earliest it can be is at implantation.
The absolute latest it can be considered is at quickening and every fetus develops at different rates so it's hard to set an across the board measurement in weeks.
if you set it at 20 weeks, you will inevitably murder 18 week old human beings that developed a bit faster and can dream and respond to stimuli.

again, the principal means of justifying genocide is to dehumanize the target.

 

[cow451]

Wait... Who does pay the defendant's cost if they lose?

Guess.

 

[NxNW]

again, rape or incest? Morning after pill, offer it during post rape examinations.

Republicans are trying to outlaw that, too.

 

[Jamdoc]

Republicans are trying to outlaw that, too.

That one I disagree with.
Life doesn't begin at erection.

Biblically and Biologically i can make a case of conception being implantation rather than fertilization.
But no such argument can make the claim that they're not a human life until after they're born so it's okay to terminate a pregnancy.
But preventing one from happening, and biologically a woman is not pregnant until implantation, fertilized ovum don't implant and leave the body a majority of the time. That I can defend.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Ectopic pregnancies aren't exceptional. They are uncommon, but they happen often enough that laws that don't make provisions for them are grossly immoral.

Exceptional and uncommon are synonyms. Saying they aren't exceptional, they're uncommon, is like saying it isn't remote, it's distant.

The law in this case isn't "grossly immoral", but rather it isn't specific enough. But I don't really see why it would need to be in this case. As an ectopic pregnancy isn't really an actual pregnancy, since there's virtually no way for a baby to survive outside of the uterus.

An abortion is taking a baby outside of the uterus to end his/her survival. But in the case of ectopic pregnancy, the baby is already outside of the uterus and therefore already will not survive.

And when it comes to this exceptional/uncommon case, it seems to me that pro-abortionists are using it to demonstrate how abortion laws are "grossly immoral" and therefore shouldn't exist in the first place.

 

[TLK Valentine]

One wonders why the Christian right supported Donald Trump, then. Trump's then-lawyer, Michael Cohen, helped cover up Jerry Falwell Jr.'s adultery scandal and in turn extracted Falwell's endorsement of Trump. You've got adulterers endorsing adulterers, and the Christian right voted for Trump. Even after Trump's bribe to Stormy Daniels came to light, including the actual check he write, the Christian right still largely supports Trump.

And yet the Christian right keeps supporting Donald Trump.

That's what thirty pieces gets you these days.